|
|
Vol. 7, No. 2 & 3 April-September 2001
| Editor's Corner... |
|
Special insert...
The January 2001 earthquake devastated the entire Indian state of Gujarat, causing extensive loss of life and pro-perty. Its effects were particularly severe in Kutch district where the urban areas of Bhuj, Anjar, Bachau and Rapar suffered near total destruction. Rural areas were also badly affected with over 200 villages almost completely destroyed. In the quake's aftermath, the area's people and administration areas are challenged by issues of response and relief, rehabilitation, information and communication, and loss estimation. Response and Relief Post-earthquake studies have demonstrated that survival rates are higher in the first 24 hours following the event. The correlation between victim survival rates and the rapidity with which victims are located and rescued underscores the need for a sophisticated search and rescue capability. A rapid response with resources that can size up structures and formulate search and rescue plans is essential. Despite a history of natural disasters, the efficiency of civil disaster management is a handicap. State governments tend to requisition the armed forces even before using their own resources because the latter's response is quick and effective. Disaster management plans should be structured so that the armed forces are requisitioned only when a disaster's scale is beyond the capacities of the civil administration. Rehabilitation
The earthquake left thousands physically and psychologically injured and handicapped. Long-term rehabilitation is necessary for those who suffered serious injury and mental trauma. Economic rehabilitation of families who lost earning members needs special attention. Temporary shelters should be provided to the homeless. Reconstruction and resettlement objectives should ensure socially, culturally and economically self-sustaining communities, with appropriate housing, amenities and infrastructure. The seriously-damaged small-scale industry sector should be a priority for rehabilitation as it employs much of the rural population. Efforts should be made to market products to allow continued production and job opportunity creation. Although industrial investment in the region is not high, and the calamity's direct impact is relatively low, the industrialization process has halted and the indirect impact will be staggering. Therefore, rehabilitation of the industrial sector needs attention. Information and Communication The Gujarat earthquake has challenged India's information systems. While damage from such disasters can only be reduced by implementing structural and non-structural measures, disaster response mechanisms will be more effective by using GIS-based tools. Suitable databases and tools need to be developed and updated. Loss Estimation Although loss estimation is important following a disaster, accurate information on losses from the earthquake is not available. There is a need to develop comprehensive databases of economic, social and demographic information by credible independent bodies. This will be invaluable for planning and monitoring of relief and rehabilitation measures. Information should be integrated with suitable GIS-based systems for use by local administrations, social scientists and planners. Lessons Learnt Existing knowledge was improperly utilized by entrepreneurs, decision-makers and policy-makers. Therefore, the recovery and reconstruction process should emphasize appropriate understanding and awareness of risk among stakeholders, sufficient training and confidence-building among professionals and masons, and appropriate planning and mitigation strategies. Despite much of Gujarat and most of Kutch, with several active fault systems, lying in seismic zone 5, no attempt has been made to build a proper decision support system for effective government actions after an earthquake. There is a need for damage assessment tools for emergency operations centers, preparation of multi-hazard micro-zoning maps, and emergency and back-up communications systems. There is need to launch a national earthquake mitigation program that should incorporate:
This article is adapted from the conclusion of a talk given by Dr Elaine Enarson to the Natural Hazards Workshop held on 18 July 2001 at Boulder, Colorado. Dr Enarson's presentation was based on her participation in a field study of rural women's work one month after the 26 January 2001 earthquake, and supported by the Hazards Center & National Science Foundation. The study was initiated, funded, and conducted by the Disaster Mitigation Institute, Ahmedabad, India. Failures are always spectacular, but one looks a bit harder for success. As much as I resist the false duality of
"failure" versus "success" and the judgmental language of "lessons learned," I think I did see success and there are lessons to be learned by other nations. Key to this was the asking and answering of questions about poor people, work and gender. I have four observations about Gujarat and questions for the United States: Firstly, indigenous NGOs and international agencies generally avoided the language of "special needs" and "special populations", focusing instead on learning from those most vulnerable and helping to build local capacity, code words for seeing "vulnerable people" first as complex human beings living in risk situations. How can we move away from the patronizing language of "special needs" so deeply embedded in our social welfare and emergency management institutions, to focus on what those who know vulnerability issues inside out can bring to the table? Secondly, reconstruction efforts in Gujarat extend beyond the dramatic and visible to include those "outsiders" most out of sight: earthquake victims living far from the epicenter, women unemployed when salty water was rendered fresh, dalit and adavasi outside even the lowest rungs of the caste system. Can we in the US also leave behind categorical identities (the old, the disabled, the poor) and learn what specific forces and conditions put people in jeopardy in our own neighborhoods and communities? Then, can we learn to work with tenants associations, battered women's shelters, refugee rights centers, disability centers and other advocacy groups committed to just those changes needed to reduce
Americans' risk? Thirdly, community-based mitigation works. Without groups like Self Employed Womens Associaiton (SEWA) and Disaster Mitigation Institute (DMI), among many others, people's short-term needs and long-term interests cannot be so well communicated. NGOs with deep community roots, a strong record of local practice, and commitment to reducing risk, are vital resources for reconstruction. How can we build this kind of infrastructure? How can our CBOs and faith-based organizations be helped to have more awareness of disaster and risk? Why don't we use gender analysis to develop strategies for reducing women's vulnerability in our own huge informal sector? More modestly, when will we at least know where we stand because we systematically collect and report data by gender? The struggles to secure human rights and sustainable development that have already galvanized global social movements are likely only to become stronger in the future as vulnerability to natural events increases. This is the true "window of opportunity" for disaster prevention. Women's movements around the world can lead the way, not simply because they harness the wisdom and energy of half the world's population, but because women have historically organized collectively around pivotal vulnerability issues: from environmental justice and living wages to social equality, affordable housing and social protection. |
To get announcements whenever this page is updated, please subscribe to adpc-announce-subscribe@egroups.com
by sending a blank email.
| Newsletter | Search Our Site | Forums | Disaster Links | Web Server Statistics | ADPC Home |
|
Information, Research & Network Support  Webmaster |
